Why Is UNESCO Supporting Locking Up Information?

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

Mon, Apr 26th 2010 3:49pm — Mike Masnick

Today may be World Intellectual Property Day, but this past Friday was also apparently World Book and Copyright Day (quite a bookended weekend for government monopolies on knowledge!). Bas Grasmayer points out that UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which is supposed to be focused on "promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture" oddly chose Friday's "World Book and Copyright Day" to launch an "anti-piracy observatory."

This is bizarre for all sorts of reasons. An organization focused on encouraging education and international collaboration seems like the last place that would be supporting locking up information through government-granted monopolies. This "observatory" appears to have little interest in determining whether or not stronger copyright actually promotes international collaboration through education, science and culture -- and simply assumes it must. Given that the actual evidence on this particular topic -- especially in developing nations where you would think UNESCO would be most concerned -- suggests exactly the opposite, it's quite troubling that UNESCO would take this particular position. It's a position that harms developing nations solely to benefit a few corporations. That doesn't seem like a position UNESCO would support.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: intellectual property, unesco

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 4:04pm

standard dribble. think about the children, oh, a few corporations will get rich! what you didnt mention is that all those books have authors, editors, publishers, distributors, and many, many other people who earn a livelihood from writing and publishing books. it isnt just a few corporations, but its a really nice try to make it sound like nothing more than greedy companies. another fail and another overreach from the masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 4:19pm
  
  Re:
  Try actually reading the post next time - you might be able to write a relevant comment!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 4:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "it's quite troubling that UNESCO would take this particular position. It's a position that harms developing nations solely to benefit a few corporations. That doesn't seem like a position UNESCO would support."
    
    i read it just fine.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 4:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ". . . it's quite troubling that UNESCO would take this particular position. It's a position that harms developing nations solely to benefit a few authors, editors, publishers, distributors, and many, many other people. That doesn't seem like a position UNESCO would support."
      
      So why are those few people, compared to all those people in a developing nation, more important than, oh, I forgot. Because intellectual property is a right handed down from God.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 6:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        what do you consider a few? 100,000? a million? how many people do you think are involved worldwide in writing, producing, distributing, selling, marketing, shipping, and so on of the written word, including the words on the internet, in magazines, etc? try not to re-write the story again to cover for the masnick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 6:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is more information/knowledge/content that is shared freely than there is information/knowledge/content that is copyrighted. Is fighting copyright infringement more important than sharing knowledge?
        
        With an incredible amount of people in the world carrying supercopying machines in their pockets?
        
        And the publishing industry is shrinking because 20th century distribution schemes are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the 21st century.
        
        Shipping? Really? You're worried about all those people who might lose their shipping jobs?
        
        Artists will continue to create art with or without copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 6:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nope. they can keep sharing all that free information, which is free in part because someone created it and it has become free over time. without respect to copyright holders, many sources of new information might never make it out there, books might not be written, and so on. dont make the marginal mistake that the masnick makes: distribution is nothing without content. remove the content and you are distributing nothing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 6:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        [citation needed]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If I recall techdirt's content is freely reusable, or at least mike's stuff is. So the very site you posted your comment on proved said comment wrong. YOU. FAIL.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 9:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        content still had to be created. without it they would be sharing nothing. i know its hard to imagine but someone actually has to do this. mike freely shares his content because it has little actual value once it is published. opinion pieces typically are of little value over time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Content will be created with or without copyright.
        
        Exhibit A: the past, present and the future.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dementia (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 5:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, while Mike's content has value because of the discussions that ensue once it is published. At least, some of us that read the site regularly feel that way. Whether you choose to believe it or not is simply not relevant. Regardless, to say that people in developing nations, of which I'm sure the number exceeds several million, are less important that publishers and shippers, shows the little regard you hold for the rest of humanity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DH's love child, 27 Apr 2010 @ 6:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "content still had to be created. without it they would be sharing nothing. i know its hard to imagine but someone actually has to do this. mike freely shares his content because it has little actual value once it is published. opinion pieces typically are of little value over time."\
        
        Well, I've got news for you. the VAST majority of content I consume (ie music) was created LONG before copywrong existed. I am a musician and composer and I have a VERY large library of sheet music from the public domain that, believe it or not, was never copyrighted and was composed in the last 10 years. Just because the content isn't copyrighted, doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I publish all of my music to the public domain and people who value it, use it.
        
        It's very elitist to assume that only content which has to be paid for has value. Most people value FACTS, for example. And much to the chagrin of you and your other IP maximalist supporters, they are available FREE. $$$!=VALUE
        
        Logic fail
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 4:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    True that
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 5:48pm

...I'll give it another go.

@Richard: True that
@the other Anonymous Coward: Reread the first two sentences of the second paragraph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 6:12pm

The media and entertainment industry have actually brainwashed everyone into thinking that because you wrote a book or a song or a movie you deserve to be paid and paid a lot and your family for the next 7 generations. Why society just goes along with this is a mystery to me. I create websites but don't charge people every time they go to one of my websites. The client pays me for work performed and it's a done deal. If a plumber installs a toilet in my house I don't pay him every time I flush. I know that that's a bit facetious so save the sarcasm. I'm sick of hearing all this crap about the poor author and his great great grandchildren that may have to work for a living. Stop the government from subsidizing entertainers and authors by permitting these monopolies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 7:13pm
  
  Re:
  "The media and entertainment industry have actually brainwashed everyone into thinking that because you wrote a book or a song or a movie you deserve to be paid and paid a lot and your family for the next 7 generations."
  
  Well, they may have succeeded there even if the reality is that far less than 0.0001% of those doing the sorts of things you (and they) talk about will ever be paid for any of it much less see it published/recorded,seen,blogged about or whatever.
  
  Even should that happen the entertainment industry will use, as it always has, accounting practises which would be criminally fraudulent in any other busiess to avoid paying the "artists" they work with. Well, not paying them much or anywhere near the amount of product their name on the product moved.
  
  None of that makes much difference in the fact that UNESCO should be a couple of universes away from "piracy" observatories or whatver.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HuwOS, 26 Apr 2010 @ 6:20pm

Way to miss the point people.
Whether you are in favour of enforcing copyright to the nth degree or not, the question is what the heck has it to do with UNESCO.
On the face of it, a body, the point of which is to encourage international collaboration on reasearch amongst other things has no obvious hook to any anti-piracy activism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
opit (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 8:33pm

UNESCO
Don't any of you lot read 'conspiracy theories' ? When something patently doesn't make sense on the face of it...start looking behind the 'Mission Statement' and see what actual results of activities are. It's good science...and it's good detective work about Politics.
http://conspiracyrealitytv.com/brief-history-of-the-uns-unesco-conspiracy-nwo-propaganda- conditioning-the-masses-in-preparation-for-one-world-government/
That was one result of a search on parameters 'UNESCO and the NWO' Give it Hell !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yogi, 26 Apr 2010 @ 9:38pm

What's the surprise?
Can there be a more corrupt body than the UN?

If the copyright industry can rush through a satanic copyright bill in the British parliament, and get the governments of the world to consider a law (ACTA) that they actually wrote by themselves and solely for themselves, against the interests of citizens and consumers worldwide, then it should come as no surprise that the RIAA and MPAA can and would subvert the UN.

A UN official probably doesn't cost that much anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
v, 26 Apr 2010 @ 10:53pm

Hah, UNESCO, it's a joke, why are you even expecting something different? The current director of UNESCO is a Moscow-trained hereditary Bulgarian nomenklatura, and her father was basically the Bulgarian Goebbels, was in the politburo all his life. He is famous for and was praised for personally killing leading Bulgarian intellectuals using only the butt of his rifle immediately after the Soviet invasion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 1:52am

Tyranny of the minority against the majority... that's what Copyright is all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 6:59am

Nineteen Eighty-Four
Why Is UNESCO Supporting Locking Up Information? It's called doublethink, from Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, where agencies do the opposite of what they claim. Isn't this great?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Samir Allioui, 27 Apr 2010 @ 10:57am

wh00t
Bas Grasmayer is a boardmember of the Dutch Pirate Party.

Go Pirate parties ! Keep up the good work !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]